Despite the absence of alternative implied by the name of the project, Kyiv Dialogues, it is not only being held in the capital of Ukraine. Within framework of this project the chief editors of Ukrainian and Russian print media try to find mutual understanding. In the end of December 2009 the project was located in Moscow. It resulted not only in dialog itself but also in two joint projects of The Day and Russkaya gazeta (Russian Newspaper). These were the constructive exchanges entitled “What kind of Russia do we love?” (thoughts of Ukrainian intelligentsia collected by The Day and published by Russkaya gazeta) and “What kind of Ukraine do we love?” (collected by Russkaya gazeta and published by The Day).
“The first experience of cooperation with The Day was very important,” said the chief editor of Russkaya gazeta Vladislav Fronin.
“Now we would like to go further and make photo sequences: Russia in eyes of a Ukrainian photo journalist and vice versa — Ukraine in the eyes of a Russian photo journalist. Every journalist, thus, should be free in choosing places for shooting photos. It would be another step on the way of breaking stereotypes, accumulated images and suspicion.
Although the main participants of the project are the mass media managers, the scope of the Kyiv Dialogues project that took place on June 21 in Kyiv went beyond journalism and included the President’s Administration and diplomatic corps. This time the RF Ambassador to Ukraine Mikhail Zurabov came to the meeting. The participation of political figures in what would seem like a purely journalistic talkshop automatically broadened the context and scope of the discussion and turned the dialog to social and political issues.
The participants of the Ukrainian side of the meeting that took place in Kyiv on June 21 were: chief editor of The Day Larysa Ivshyna, chief editors of Dzerkalo Tyzhnia Volodymyr Mostovy and Yulia Mostova, heads of information agencies Interfaks and UNIAN Oleksandr Martynenko and Oleksandr Kharchenko. Their Russian counterparts were: Mikhail Shvydkoi, ex-minister of culture, head of the department for State Administration in Culture, State Administration faculty of Moscow State University, the chief editors of Moskovskiy Komsomolets (Pavel Gusev), Kommersant (Azer Mursaliev), Ogonek (Viktor Loshak), and Mikhail Gusman, first deputy general director of the information agency ITAR-TASS.
Already at the beginning of the meeting it became clear that the present events in Ukraine are viewed by Ukrainian and Russian media workers from absolutely different positions: while for Russian colleagues the present Ukrainian state authorities appear to be saving relations between the two countries, Ukrainian journalists have an absolutely different vision.
The different interpretations, the result of a distorted information space on both sides, are a good reason for organizing meetings like this one, for having a dialog, and for attempting to reach mutual understanding. Not only political issues were covered. First of all there was a focus on the Ukrainian and Russian societies, how they function, what their lives look like, and what ghosts of the past keep haunting them and prevent them from moving on. This was also a subject of discussion, as was the self regulation of the journalistic environment. It turned out that the recent trends regarding freedom of press in Ukraine and Russia have gone in opposite directions. While in Ukraine there are alarming signals, Russian mass media feel more freedom, even despite the dozens of recently adopted undemocratic amendments to the legislation that regulate mass media activity. By the way, those amendments, just like some others that limit political freedom, were introduced in Russia as a part of a modernization program. Did they really help modernize? This question to Russian colleagues was expressed by The Day’s chief editor Ivshyna. It is extremely significant that the points of view of the Russian mass media representatives did not coincide.
However, there was no disharmony in what concerned the thoughts on the usefulness of Kyiv Dialogues.
“I am convinced that this dialogue is extremely important because we have a chance to define our position,” said Shvydkoi. “There are many people now who think that intelligentsia in Ukraine and Russia does not play the role it did, let’s say, back in 19th and 20th centuries. However, the formation of public opinion, and impact on it, depends to a great extent on how the intelligentsia formulates this or that issues. Mass media is the sphere of activity in both Ukraine and Russia that gathers the intellectual elite under its banner.”
“First of all, this type of dialogue is very useful. It helps to understand the motivation and actions of each of the parties. However, only time will show its efficiency,” thinks the director of the information agency Interfaks-Ukraina Martynenko.
“Mass media appears to be an informational bridge between the Ukrainian and Russian societies. Unfortunately, there still exist old stereotypes in both Russian and Ukrainian societies,” mentioned Fronin. “Political elites have particularly contributed to the further existence of these stereotypes. The communication taking place these days in Kyiv is useful because we can find out from each other what are the people’s assessments and opinions. It does not mean that we have to agree with them, but it is important for me to hear the opinions of my colleagues on what they think about the processes that are taking place in Ukraine today. I, personally, thought that they would be more optimistic. At the same time I think that it is also important for our Ukrainian colleagues to know how the chief editors of Russian newspapers view the events in Russia. It means that a great period in our relations has began today. Journalists both Ukrainian and Russian have to think about how not to turn our words into avalanches.”
The next meeting within the framework of Kyiv Dialogues project will probably take place in Saint Petersburg, where Ukrainian chief editors, as it is planned, will not only meet with colleagues and the representatives of the authorities but also with students.
